INTERPRETATIVE
METU JFA 2013/2 MODELS OF MINIMALISM IN ARCHITECTURE
(30:2) 181-194
Received: 10.09.2012; Final Text: 10.12.2013
Keywords: minimalism in architecture;
contemplation; consumerism; modernism;
postmodernism; minimal art.
1. The term existential minimum (egzistenz
minimum) refers to the minimum of living
space in social housing in the context of
rehabilitation and reconstruction in Germany
after World War I. This is of concern to the
architectural model of Neue Sachlichkeit,
which was supposed to symbolize a spirit of
cost-efficiency, functionality and rationality
of the modern age (Frampton, 1992, 130-141).
* Department of History, Theory and
Aesthetics of Architecture and Visual Arts,
Faculty of Architecture, University of
Belgrade, SERBIA.
METU
DOI: JFA 2013/2 181
10.4305/METU.JFA.2013.2.10
A READING OF INTERPRETATIVE MODELS OF
MINIMALISM IN ARCHITECTURE
Vladimir STEVANOVIC*
INTRODUCTION
In architectural discourse, outside of the context of Frankfurt existential
minimum,(1) the term minimalism appears in the second half of the 70s.
Articles of professional journals and chapters of editions used the term
to describe morphological aspects of the works of individual or more
architects. Being a minimalist, in common sense supposed architecture of
primary and simple - minimal geometric forms. Formal orientation of then
current Legorreta, Kahn and Ando, was determined as minimalism (Smith,
1976; Bonnefoi, 1979; Taki, 1984). Leading historians, during the 80s, also
sporadically use the term in monographic reviews of modern architecture.
Jencks (1982; 1987) does it when he speaks of reviving of purism in the
works of the New York Five and ascetic style of fundamental Platonic
forms of neorationalist Rossi and Ungers. In a similar way, Curtis (1982)
comments on the cold abstraction and strict minimalist tendencies in
Scandinavian architecture.
FIRST WRITINGS: CREATING A MYTH
Noticeable expansion of a new figurative phenomenon in architectural
practice in the late 80s, takes on considerable reflection on the theoretical
level. In those years starts the writing about minimalism in architecture
as a tendency, not as individual manifestations. It becomes clear that a
new topic is established in architectural theory. From then onwards, in
theoretical considerations on minimalism in architecture there is a certain
number of consistent hypotheses, which over time acquired a status
of typical interpretative patterns. However, these patterns constantly
reiterated, do not come from nowhere and have not been there always. One
could ask is there any specific author, text or publication, responsible for
theoretical promotion of minimalism in architectural discourse. Where did
it all begin? A comprehensive chronological analysis of literature - primary
references dealing with minimalist theory, point to December 1988, when
182 METU JFA 2013/2
2. Constant relocations of architects through
different stylistic formations is not something
uncommon, which is emphasized by
Goldhagen (2005) when she notes that the
formal preferences of an architect might
change even in course of his or her life.
Nevertheless, the particular nature of this
case is reflected in the fact that the same
works of certain architects, belonging to
the same period, at the same time pervate
throughout the discourses of minimalism,
critical regionalism, neo-rationalism etc.
3. It is significant that the theme of the
connection between minimal art and
minimalism in architecture in this edition
belonged art theorists such as Donald Kuspit
and Germano Celant (Celant, 1988; Kuspit,
1988).
4. In this context Bonnefoi (1979) remarks
on the relationship between Kahn brutalist
architecture and minimal art, which are
realized through common strategy of equal
treatment of formal and structural solutions.
5. Phenomenology is a philosophical
direction, stipulated by its founder Edmund
Husserl, that opposes a positivistic,
abstractly-scientific view of the world.
Phenomenology proposes immediate,
intuitive knowledge, whereby the pure
consciousness is intentionally focused on the
essence of the observed subject.
6. This topic is often discussed in the context
of Ando. Taki (1984) interprets Ando’s
minimalist monotonousness as refusal of
values of consumer society and turing to the
spirituality of Japanese tradition.
7. Rassegna 36/4: Minimal in short notes and
bibliography lists appears together with the
German edition Daidalos 30: Pathosformeln
in der Architectur (Formulae of Pathos in
Architecture), as one of the first journals
that thematically treated minimalism in
architecture. While Savi and Montaner (1996,
176) and Macarthur (2005, 105,108) refer to
both issues, Melhuish (1994, 10), Bertoni
(2002, 221) and Ruby et al (2003, 26) include
only Rassegna. The truth is that only Rassegna
was dedicated exclusively to minimalism,
because Daidalos contains only one text that
explicitely uses the term.
VLADIMIR STEVANOVIC
Italian architectural journal Rassegna publishes the thematic issue titled
Minimal.
Before the author of the editorial, architect and theorist of neorationalist
Venetian school Gregotti, there were two matters of importance for
creating a myth on the new style: 1) altisonant, explicit and representative
denomination – minimalism, or in Macarthur’s (2005, 101) words: to say in
a word what picture says and; 2) gathering as many architects as possible.
Accordingly, in addition to the already mentioned Ando, Kahn, Ungers,
in the same line, among others, there were: Isozaki, Barragan, Siza, Souto
de Moura, Alejandro de la Sota Martinez, Herzog and DeMeuron, Nouvel,
Valle, Snozzi and Gregotti himself. It is interesting that minimalist works
of many aforementioned architects already existed, before declaration of
minimalism, though as a part of architectural historiography in some other
sense. For instance, Frampton (1983) already spoke about Kahn, Barragan,
Snozzi, Ando, Gregotti, Ungers and Siza in terms of critical regionalism,
while Jencks (1987) studies Ungers within postmodern fundamentalists.
Symptomatic was the appropriation of architects under the auspices of
minimalist discourse with the purpose of theoretical establishment of a
new topic (2).
For Gregotti, architectural minimalism is a part of a broader tendency to
suppress what is excessive in artistic practice, on the basis of discovering
elementary, archetypal gestures. As one of the goals of Minimal issue, he
pointed out historical placement and analysis of theoretical influences. In
this sense, Gregotti emphasizes formal and poetic relations with American
minimal art (3) from the 60s and the tradition of European avantgarde
and modern architecture. Avon and Vragnaz deal with the aspects of
minimalism in architecture, common point of different author concepts,
recognized in the Mediterranean region (Italy, Spain and Portugal),
Switzerland and Japan. These are extreme formal simplification and
reduction to minimal geometry, as well as absence of elements that can:
1) suggest function and dimension - impression of multifunctionality and
ascalarity; 2) provoke emotion – neutrality, and; 3) transfer a symbolic
message - absence of meaning and self-reference. Literal use of material
is also a significant aspect (4). Bodily sensitivity and tactile experience
are accentuated in the context of phenomenological perception (5). In the
space of reduction, comprised only of primary architectural elements,
light and material, the relation between the user and spatial unit is
intensified. Movement, touch and look gain specific significance when
formal complications do not come to the fore. If in the European context
it was insisted on certain historical influences, Japan was a completely
different story. Here Avon and Vragnaz relate minimalism with an
experience of emptiness, originating from Buddhist tradition. As a key
of Japanese minimalism there was a spirit of the wabi – moral principle,
which advocates voluntary poverty and simple life. Wabi is based on a Zen
concept, according to which separation from material possessions leads
toward self-realization and self-liberation (6). At the end, most Rassegna
authors coincide in an estimation that minimalist reduction represents a
call for resistance against postmodern eclectic assembly and decorative
hypertrophy.
On one hand, almost forgotten and now hard-to-find Milan edition had
insignificant impact on further theorization of minimalism in architecture.
This allegation is complemented by the fact that Rassegna texts were
cited in only several points in other theorists (7). However, from today’s
INTERPRETATIVE MODELS OF MINIMALISM IN ARCHITECTURE METU JFA 2013/2 183

perspective, we can say that the majority of dominant research approaches

on minimalism in architecture is unified in that very journal. Theoretical
contribution to this field greatly relies on identification, interpretation and
criticism of what is written in Rassegna.

THEORETICAL DEVELOPMENT
During the 90s, the constitution of theoretical framework included formal
analyses, definitions, classifications of architects, as well as cultural and
national backgrounds, in which minimalism was detected. The debate
took place for the most part in Italian, Spanish and English journals.
Architectural journals Lotus International, El Croquis and Architectural Design
Profile, following Rassegna’s example, print thematic issues. In the mid 90s
the first monographs appear (Carmagnola, Pasca, 1996; Savi, Montaner,
1996; Pawson, 1996; Ypma, 1996).
Montaner (1993) states the characteristics of minimalism: the picturesque
minimal, geometrical rigor, the ethics of repetition, technical precision and
materiality, unity and simplicity, the distortion of scale, predominance
of structual form and pure present. From London emerge several
definitions of minimalism: 1) essentially a reductionist architecture which
comprises simplicity, linearity, subdued palette of colors, level of finish
and contemplation (Vice, 1994, 15); 2) perfection and quality an object
achieves once it can no longer be improved by subtraction and when all the
components, details and joints are reduced to the essence (Pawson, 1996, 7)
and; 3) reduction of architecture to the primordial concepts of space, light
and mass (Murray, 1999, 8).
In the 90s some new architects appear. They also soon became minimalists,
together with the authors whose work was known already in 1988, but
was not mentioned in Rassegna. It is indicative that there was no mention
of London minimalism in Italian and Spanish publications, where we
could hear of local-Mediterranean, Swiss and Japanese minimalism.
Possible reason for this is the fact that English minimalism first developed
through smaller designs and architecture of the interior. Pawson,
Silvestrin and Freton are specialists for interiors of apartments, boutiques,
restaurants, galleries and family homes, while Chiperfield is known for
larger buildings. In this sense, London theorists never failed to show how
London minimum is underestimated in the world public (Melhuish, 1994,
13; Ypma, 1996, 13). However, London theorists exhaustively pointed
to other areas where minimalism in architecture was developing. As
leading figures of Swiss essentialists Buchenan (1991) affirms Herzog and
DeMeuron. In the Mediterranean region, in the Iberian Peninsula there
is a mention of Souto de Moura and Baeza. Melhuish (1994) as features
of Mediterranean minimalism allocates connection with the location,
handcrafting in comparison to the industrial manufactory and tradition of
white, simple, rational architecture incorporated into the landscape. Vice
(1994) finds that the Japanese climate, tradition and lifestyle are acceptable
for the minimalist formula. These considerations open questions on origin
and affiliation of minimalism in terms of tradition, which causes some
theorists to appropriate minimalism to their own cultures. Ypma (1996)
draws a English reductionist line: from Victorian architecture of elegant
restraint and simple use of highest-quality material, over technological
standardization in circumstances of industrial revolution, to the new
brutalism of the years 50 of XX century. For Ypma minimalism is a true
London style, conceived in this city in the 80s, as a part of English national
184 METU JFA 2013/2
8. This way МоМА confirms the epitom of
the right place for pompous presentation
of new architectural tendencies. In that
sense we can compare the importance
of the ehxibition Light construction with
the exhibitions International Style (1932)
and Deconstructivism (1988), held in this
institution.
9. Ibelings (1988, 57), Prestinenza (2008, 86)
and Malgrave and Goodman (2011, 195, 215)
refers to both exibitions, while Savi and
Montaner (1996, 178) mentions only Monolitic
architecture.
VLADIMIR STEVANOVIC
characters. On the other hand, Ranzo (Carmagnola, Pasca, 1996, 149) finds
the archetype of minimalism in vernacular Mediterranean architecture.
Media presentation with the new style in the mid 90s transfers from
Europe to America, in form of organized exhibitions. In New York’s
MoMA,(8) the exhibition called Light construction (1995) curated by Riley,
shows architectural works of strict rectangular volumes, which realize
the new architectural sensibility and withdrawal from formal-rhetorical
incidents. That same year, in Pittsburgh, Machado and el-Khoury organize
the exhibition Monolithic architecture. The topic are objects that look like
as if they were made in a single piece, solid, massive structure of great
eloquence in spite of limited formal means (Machado, el-Khoury, 1995).
Even though the term minimalism is not particularly stressed, both
exhibitions are important link in the chain of texts (9).
This constitutional period of theoretical development is followed by critical
review of established minimalist theory. The main topics set in Rassegna
still remain: historical line, ethical aspects, relations with modernism,
minimal art and postmodernism, as well as self-reference which produces
phenomenological experience of minimalist space.
CONTEMPLATION / CONSUMERISM
Study of Japanese spirituality related to minimalism in architecture is
introduction to highlighting the elements of theology and tradition in
theoretical treatises. After Taki (1984) and Avon and Vragnaz (1988),
contemplative values are pointed by Auer (1988, 100). He understands
Japanese minimalism as an ode to emptiness, moral encouragement
and a call for humility and self-realization. The most influential English
minimalist architect, Pawson, got to know the wabi ideal directly during
his four-year stay in Japan. In addition to that, his fascinations are empty,
purified, ascetic space of medieval Cistercian monasteries, which as
such allow undisturbed worship of God, and a life radically dedicated
to material poverty and spiritual wealth preached by the Protestant
sect of Quakers. Pawson integrates sources of inspiration in his book
Minimum (1996). Here the concepts of simplicity, reduction and essence
are represented as the key of understanding, the necessary state and basic
quality of minimalism, and most importantly - common ideal of many
different cultures.
Symptomatic for argumentation which takes the postulates of ascetic
religions and sects is the belief that minimalist, as a simple architecture,
based on selective process of reduction, helps people discover their true
desires and essential needs of life. This way, minimalism functions as
a universal phenomenon of rejection of materiality and an orientation
towards spirituality and essence. These theses carry specific meaning
because they are created in times truly marked with: 1) economic recession
and energy deficit; 2) obstinate exploitation of natural resources, growing
environmental crisis and pollution, and; 3) mass consumption and cultural
contamination. With regard to this, London theorists gradually develop a
mixture of socially engaged and psychological-ethical reading: minimalist
reduction is represented as a remedy for all victims of consumerist society
and a metaphor of saving, both of architectural ornaments and world
resources. While Vice (1994) understands minimalism in architecture as
a reaction to consumerism of the 80s, Glancey (1990) critiques bogging
down in possessions, which encourages people to fill their spaces with
INTERPRETATIVE MODELS OF MINIMALISM IN ARCHITECTURE METU JFA 2013/2 185

unnecessary things. The superabundance of mass culture visual effects

results in a search for a quiet oasis in an overcrowded and visually loud
environment. The contrast between the quiet and the loud in terms
of architectural visuality is represented as a triumph of minimalist
sophistication over consumerism. For the same reasons Ympa (1996) does
not see minimalism as a style, rather sees it as a philosophy of life, which
offers visual peace in the chaos of urban life. For Toy (1999, 7) minimalism
is a perceptive therapy for liberation from everyday hustle and relaxing
in the peaceful paradise of elegant simplicity. In this theoretical line, the
Italian designer Vignelli (Bertoni, 1999, 226) is the most pompous. He
suggests that minimalism is not a style, it is a behavior, a way of being,
fundamental reaction to visual noise, disorder and vulgarity. It is the
longing for the essence of things, rather than their appearance.
Minimum significantly influenced the Spanish and Italian theorists. In
a Pawson manner, Zabalbeascoa and Marcos (2000) and Bertoni (2002)
provide chronological maps of cycles in reductive culture, pointing
the study of minimalism backwards, toward everything that contained
concepts of simple, reduced, empty, spiritual, essential and modest.
Bertoni’s approach follows manifestation of reduction, expressive clarity,
rigorous essentiality, mental purity and formal simplicity; regardless of
the social-historical context and whether it is architecture or a mindset in
other areas of culture. This historical-associative theory line is oriented
exclusively towards the search for the precursors of minimalism. The
criterion is any coincidence, and the goal to establish as many arbitrary
connections with minimalist tradition as possible. Synthesizing the
spirituality of transcendence and dissatisfaction with the time in which the
glorification of material assets in contrast with usefulness and necessity,
Zabalbeascoa and Marcos further develop the ethical aspect of minimalism,
which can be called contemplation in consumerism. They understand
the formal nature of minimalism as zeitgeist, suggesting purification and
reduction as most eloquent gestures in the era showered with images,
shapes and sounds. For Bertoni, minimalism in architecture transcends
the resistance to consumerist culture and becomes a promotion of life
in spirituality, clarity and harmony. The most dedicated to this kind of
theorization, Bertoni perceives minimalism as ethics of simplicity. In this
sense, moral integrity of minimalism supposes that: 1) an authentic, simple
and instantaneous act of perception of basic psychological and physical
values, such as time, space and silence, opens a dialog with the spiritual
dimension and; 2) mental, spatial and timeless emptiness allow for a pause
for reflection and a different perspective of reality. The aim is to get to
know a more peaceful, more dignified and valuable lifestyle, where at the
top of the pyramid there are universal qualities that belong to ordinary,
simple and everyday things. Minimalism is the manifestation of this
lifestyle and ethical prevalence between: 1) defeating materialism, weight
of possession and all that is inauthentic, excessive, deceitful and irrelevant
and; 2) a quest for spirituality, real values in life and essence. Suppression
and rejection of the first and concentration to the second, according
to Bertoni, eliminates modern noise and sets the foundations of a new
principle of progress.
Paradoxical transfer of ideas from traditional and religious culture to a
mass commodity culture was inspiring for the critics of this theory. The
relation between metaphysical and economic aspect is emphasized in
Jenks, who understands the term of minimalism as bourgeois version
of late modern movement. Through his aphorism minimalism lends itself
186 METU JFA 2013/2 VLADIMIR STEVANOVIC

to spirituality, but it also lends itself to shopping (Murray, 1999, 16), Jenks
alludes that the spirituality is manifested in materiality of most expensive
commercial architecture of London. Similar skepticism was expressed
by Vice (1994), comparing the voluntary and conditioned simplicity, i.e.,
minimalism for the design and minimalism for the necessity imposed by
economic poverty.

MODERNISM: REVIVAL, SURVIVAL OR STYLE OF XX CENTURY

One of the trajectory of theorization positions minimalism as repetition of
modernist style. Theorists refer to two periods in terms of modernist remi-
niscence: 20s as heroic era of modern movement, and; 60s as culmination of
international style.
Minimalism in architecture, in early 90s in London, was considered a
revival of non-ornamentalism, clear space and beauty of simple elegance,
in the continuity of mythical unfinished project of early modernism of the
20s (Тoy, 1994, 7; Melhuish, 1994, 11). Since the topics here are the interior
and a family home, the affirmation of Loos and Corbusier as precursors of
minimalism is understandable. The new formal idiom of restrained, strict,
neutral and peaceful architecture, emerged is the second half of the 80s,
Glancey (1990) denominates minimal new moderns and announces it as the
style of the 90s. The same phenomenon Jencks (1990a, 1990b) observes in a
range: twenties revivalism; late modern movement; neo-modern aesthetics, and as
forefather of minimalism he sees van der Rohe.
The repertoire of form, appearing in the modern movement
unambiguously corresponds to the work of the new minimalist generation
of architects. Nevertheless, following the approach of Goldhagen (2005),
it seems necessary to indicate that there is a significant difference between
the attitudes towards morphological aspects within the discursive field.
A simple abstract geometry in the 20s represented a metaphor of the
battle for liberation from bourgeois ornamental historicism and tradition
in a broader sense, while the technology was glorified due to cheap
and rapid production processes, which instilled faith in social progress
based on industrial and machine development. In this context Gregotti
(1988, 8) assessed the technology as a natural field rather than a field of
reconsideration for minimalist architects. In comparison to the ideology of
modernist social housing program, with a change of social context, typical
user of modernist/minimalist architecture also changed. London Мinimal
new moderns is detected by Glancey (1990) as just the opposite – a new
lifestyle of wealthier class. Former utilitarian ethics became a lifestyle of
local bourgeoisie, apartment and commercial space owners. As utopian
tensions disappeared over time, the image of the modern survived without
epochal references, reduced to material phenomena (Avon, Vragnaz, 1988,
32). Aware of this are the theorists who consider minimalism in the context
of different manifestation of this modern image. In addition to social
connotations, Wölfflinian relation between modernism and minimalism
can be resolved in a plan of perception (Melhuish, 1994, 11; Zabalbeascoa
and Marcos, 2000, 107). Functional ideology of mechanical and industrial
era produced a machine for living, with clear but cold and aseptic space. On
the other hand, minimalism avoids the impression of coldness using tactile
material qualities and texture subtlety. Sensory and bodily experience of
non-cluttered space is underlined. In this context Auer (1988, 99) notes how
the spirit of geometry has to move from calculations to emotions, from
head to the body.
INTERPRETATIVE MODELS OF MINIMALISM IN ARCHITECTURE
10. The exhibition was organized by Collegi d’
Arquitectes de Catalunya withit XIX Congress of
the International Union of Architects (UIA) that
took place in 1996 in Barcelona. The proposal
for organization and the initiative to award
the exhibition to Col-legi were the idea of the
general secretary of XIX Congress, de Sola
Morales.
METU JFA 2013/2 187
At the exhibition Less is More (10) (1996), Savi and Montaner showcase
works of architecture and other arts. The two curators in the exhibition
catalog put forth the hypothesis that in the development of architecture
there are moments of crisis which cyclically reiterate and require a review
of fundamental disciplinary concepts (Savi, Montaner, 1996, 9). In their
opinion, these reviews resulted in returning to the starting point and
zero degree of architecture, which comprises refusing the ornaments and
seeking for the essence. In XX century, modern tradition with specific
simple and restrained morphology takes the role of classical architecture,
as eternal style. In this way, minimalism is a part of a broader self-
understandable linear inevitability in the interchange and reiteration of
styles. This is a cyclical return to the pure form after formalistic excess
that happened several times in the history of architecture, though under
different names (Gothics-Rennaissance, Rococo-Neoclassicism etc).
Behrens’s and Mies’s phrases less is more and bienahe nichts are represented
as operative principles of minimalism. XX century for these authors is the
century of minimalist simplicity, and less is more is its fundamental and
atemporal principle.
Ibelings (1988) and Macarthur (2002) understand minimalism as a kind of
nostalgia for the 60s. As Jencks and Glancey, Macarthur (2002, 146, 2005,
106) places minimalism in the frame of neomodernism (or the second
modernism), which he at the same time considers a more proper term.
He repetitively puts the word minimalism under quotation marks - so
called “minimalist” architecture. Ibelings groups the mini-movements,
which seek the absolute zero in architecture (monolitic architecture, light
construction, less is more) under the name of supermodernism. He believes
that the architecture he refers to in this context is a superlative version of
modern commercial architecture of the 60s, casually observing that today’s
minimalism is much purer than ever owing to improvement of technology
and material (Ibelings, 1998, 51). In the same context it is also the opinion of
Zabalbeascoa and Marcos (2000, 14) on minimalism as a type of modernism
sublimed in formal aspect, i.e., the last step of modernism hidden under
the shiny mask of technological progress, new materials and handicraft
quality. They interpret minimalism as revised and corrected version in
comparison to the crisis of modernism as uniform and commercialized
international style. However, for Ibelings (1998, 33-41) internationalism, as
ideal of belonging to one global community and quintessential element
of modernity of 50s and 60s, takes on a new meaning in the context of
globalization of the 90s. The idea of an internationally applicable style is
appreciated for the same reasons that it used to be criticized in the 70s and
80s, thus becoming a key in understanding supermodernism. Since, owing
to global communications, in the 90s the international ideal was actualized,
minimalism can be understood as nostalgia, not only for the architecture of
the 60s, but for the then current cultural climate.
POSTMODERNISM: NEUTRALITY OR WALLPAPERIZATION
In numerous places minimalism in architecture was regarded as rupture
from postmodern turbulence and a relief in comparison to the formalistic
excess of the 80s (Avon,Vragnaz, 1988; Melhuish, 1994; Nicolin,1994;
Riley,1995). For Auer (1988, 96) minimalism and postmodernism stand as
binary opposites: emptiness-opulence, silence-semantical plaver, timeless
elemental-speed of use. Nevertheless, the fact is that the minimalist
discourse in architecture historically belongs to the postmodernist era.
Therefore, although the genesis could be followed from several angles, the
188 METU JFA 2013/2 VLADIMIR STEVANOVIC

frame remains the postmodernist consumerist society in which there is: 1) a

mass culture, with byproducts such as kitsch, populism and glorification of
commodity; 2) a late capitalist economy, and; 3) an absence of ideology. In
terms of architecture, postmodernism can be defined as: 1) the classicizing
style inspired by historicism, figuration and easily comprehensible
symbolic ornamentalism; 2) school of thought based on semiotic, linguistic,
symbolic and communicative paradigms. The broadness of these postulates
allows understanding minimalism outside of the usual forcing of the
critique of postmodernism in terms of a face of mass consumption. In this
sense, we will present two theoretical approaches.
On the one hand, minimalism is not about resistance to extravagant
visuality, as much as taking a stance of neutrality toward the symbolic
components of postmodernism. How Ibelings (1998) notes, minimalism/
supermodernism is a neutral and non symbolic architecture, empty
medium that does not contain any message and that can stand anywhere
in a global world. Jenks (2002) also examines minimalist architecture in
the context of a consumer society, where both traditional and religious, as
well as modern outlooks disappear. Therefore, the absence of ideological
beliefs and credible public conventions led the architects to turn to the
expressions of neutrality and zero degree minimalism. Speaking in terms of
Ibelings, the neutrality is related to the context of postmodern theory, while
Jenks’s neutrality is a result of the missing ideological component in the
postmodern social triangle.
The second hypothesis is that minimalism is not the opposite, but the
product of postmodernism, and as such, it is developing like any other
commodity in the postmodern conditions. In this context, Macarthur
(2002, 137) finds minimalism the current architectural fashion, which
is the result of changes in taste compared to the postmodern notion
of architecture as a system of relations and references. Like Jencks
and Ibelings, Macarthur sees minimalist buildings as physical objects,
determined by their own hylomorphism, in a neomodern style. As the
space between lifestyle magazines, architectural periodicals and real
estate advertisements becomes smaller than ever, the architecture shown
on the front pages looking like canonized modernism, by Macarthur
assumes the same ontological status as anything else that is advertised
and sold. That is why it appropriate to talk about the commodity
character of minimalist neutrality. Macarthur adds that neomodernism/
minimalism cleared of socio-ideological connotations and historical
memory of high modernism, uses a dead formal vocabulary. In this
light, Grimshaw (2004) sharply criticizes the minimalism as a fetishized
modernism promoted as the symbol of good taste by lifestyle journals (a
phenomenon he calls Wallpaperization). Using the term soft modernism, he
sees minimalism as a humanized version of modernist boxes, where the
order, control and discipline survived, but not the sterility. According
to Grimshaw, minimalism is casual modernism, inauthentic and kitschy
retro-modernism, which exists only as a cliché without original context and
theory.
Some theorists do not find grounds for this form of criticism, at least not
in the initial phase of minimalism. They speak of a later decadence and
vulgarization, not accepting that the modernist mannerism was present
from the very beginning. Toy (2000) considers trend-focused journalism
as a double-edged sword. A positive effect was marginal detection of the
minimalist phenomenon to the general public. On the other hand, copying
INTERPRETATIVE MODELS OF MINIMALISM IN ARCHITECTURE
11. Besides the theorists of architecture,
in forming this unitary concept also
participated the authors who have treated
minimalism as general cultural phenomenon.
(Obendorf, 2009; VanEenoo, 2011).
12. Greenberg follows the Kantian theory
of abstraction of sensuality from the
surrounding factors, by idealizing modern
art in relation to extra-painting interests. The
emphasis is on isolating the pure aesthetic
experience to perceptual appearance,
without relation to other experiences
and knowledge. In this sense, Greenberg
institutionalized modern art around the
concepts of the autonomy of art and the
autonomy of artistic disciplines. Disciplinary
autonomy includes: 1) Lessingian medium
specific - a norm that ensures no interference
of different disciplinary standards, and: 2)
the program that defines the character of
the work within the media. For Greenberg,
the medium of modernist painting is a flat
surface. Flatness is an ontological category,
a specifical property that painting does
not share with any other art. The required
postulate includes an abstract and gestural
use of color and form (Battcock, 1968; Meyer,
2000).
13. Constructing a material and visual
phenomenon that is neither painting
nor sculpture but only a specific object,
minimalists exceed the limits of the
autonomy of the media. Also they reject the
abstract painting on a flat two-dimensional
surface and research of formal disciplinary
possibilities as restrictive and they choose a
concrete, literal spatiality.
METU JFA 2013/2 189
of the most superficial aspects of minimalism easily impressed a wider
audience, which, in order to establish personal status, reaches for a new
iconography without thinking about the purpose and the real reason. For
Ruby (2003, 22), the notion of minimalism changed due to its performance,
it became the incarnation of a materialistic culture, to which it was a critical
alternative. Bertoni (2006, 94) also believes that minimal design starts as
a lonely, elitist and marginal research, whereas in the 90s it becomes a
tendency, with the risk of distancing from its original goals.
MINIMAL ART: А MALAPROPISM
Minimalism in architecture bears a name used by the American art critics
in the 60s in order to unify a certain type of artistic creation of authors such
as Judd, Morris, Flavin and Andre. Relations of contemporary minimalism
in architecture and minimal art are problematic, despite the tendencies
that represent minimalism as a transdisciplinary alteration in the domains
of minimal art, literature, dance, music, costume design and architecture
(11). Architectural discourse mainly accepts this unitary concept. But since
the use of the term minimalism for purely formalistic purposes would be
meaningless, it was necessary to find a theoretical point of connection. This
was supported by Foster’s (1986) interpretation of neutrality of minimal
art towards the social context as the product of resistance to the then
existing gluttony of consumer society and popular culture. Therefore, in
both cases there is an analogy of the literal and self-referential property in
socio-cultural terms. The idea of minimalism as a concept shared between
art and architecture is complemented by the joint historical hierarchy in
comparison to the radically non-minimal styles immediately preceding
(abstract expressionism in painting and architectural postmodernism),
which is followed by a departure from theoretical frames of these styles
(Greenberg’s artistic autonomy of high modernism (12), and postmodern
linguistic concept of semiotics). In this transdisciplinary focus minimal art
is functioning as a link between architectural modernism and minimalism.
In this sense, the connecting of minimalism in architecture and minimal
art, is most often based on their positioning in a broader framework of the
tendency of less is more in art and architecture of the 20th century, which
allegedly runs continuously in a reductive and abstract development line:
European avantgarde and modern architecture, American neoavantgarde
(minimal art) and recent minimalism in architecture. For the sake of
analysis of this, as Ursprung (Ruby et al, 2003, 7) ironically puts it -
naturally given affinity, below follows a brief presentation of the crtitical
attitude minimal art takes towards Greenberg’s theory: 1) examination
of the limits of aesthetic autonomy - the primacy of existence and plastic
presence of the very work as a tautological proposition, radically directing
the effects towards the perception of volume, and not towards the meaning
(what you see is what you see) and; 2) violation of the autonomy of the
media, and refusal of the required postulate about abstract reduction of the
painting medium to its basic components - shape and color (13). The first
aspect automatically excludes ethical and idealistic parallels, considering
that it is based on literalism and anti-transcendentalism. Another aspect
refutes their common origin of the abstract and reductive. Minimal art is
against elegant abstraction, in terms of modernist reduction to a minimum
of primary geometric forms , i.e., to the most elemenatry concepts of
space, light and mass, as is the case in architecture. Minimal art is not a
reductive concept, because there is a significant difference between: 1) the
zero degree of reductive abstraction that produces minimal meanings and;
190 METU JFA 2013/2
14. Following Husserl, phenomenology
develops oscillating between ontological,
existential, physiological and poetic
modifications. Important author for
the architectural understanding of
phenomenology is Maurice Merleau-
Ponty, with his idea of direct perception
of a concrete/ lived space (Holl et al., 1994;
Pallasmaa, 2005).
15. The term minimal art comes from Richard
Wollheim’s concept of designating minimum
conditions under which something can be
considered a work of art. Here, Wollhaim’s
categorization does not even refer to the
works of the so called minimalists of the
60s, it rather refers to the works of authors
that precede what the history of art will
call minimal art: Marcel Duchamp, Robert
Rauschenberg and Ad Reinhard (Wollheim,
1965).
VLADIMIR STEVANOVIC
2) the literal abstraction which is actually only a creative strategy with
abstract aspects of objects in a literal sense. For Urpsprung and Macarthur,
the key difference between the theoretical level of artistic and architectural
minimalism lies in the attitude towards the modernism. The question posed
is: does the use of the minimalist theory in architecture suppose the rupture
of minimalist achitecture from modernism in the way the minimalist artists
did with Greenberg’s formalist modernism? (Macarthur, 2005, 106). While
minimal art is the antithesis of modernism, it is clear that architectural
minimalism, as neo-modernism, has no criticism of modernist values.
The parallel open to interpretation is a question of phenomenological
perception. A characteristic of minimal art is the work with primary
geometric volumes, which exist equally in relation to the real space
in which they are situated and to the bodily presence of the observer,
provoking perceptual possibilities. These simple objects, which do
not trigger emotions and associativity, can stimulate the observer to:
1) become more conscious of the very act of perception; 2) ask himself
of the nature of the art itself, given that the work of art encountered
with is no way different from quotidian objects. A simple form does
not mean a simple experience in a minimalist triangle, in which there
is nothing but the silent object, observer and the space, a work of art is
actually the very process of perception. That is why Krauss critiques
formalistic apprehension of minimalist concept in architecture without
taking into account the phenomenological reception as the quintessential
characteristic of minimal art. Krauss (1996, 134) considers the use of the
term minimalism appropriate exclusively for an artistic approach focused
on how the observer sees a work in a specific context. This is also pointed
out by Macarthur (2000, 48) when he asks can a work of architecture be
minimalist in such a way. Perhaps it can, for the architectural concept
of phenomenology (14) is: the multisensory and not oculocentric way of
perception of buildings, with an emphasis on bodily and haptic experience.
When he talks about a self-sufficient architecture without symbolic and
metaphorical allusions, Ibelings (1988, 89, 94) does not reject an a priori
concept of meaning. The architecture which does not refer to anything
outside itself, and does not address the intellect, automatically prioritizes
the immediate, sensual experience of space, light and materials, and the
meaning comes from how the object is experienced visually, tactilely,
bodily and spatially.
To further confusion about the name contributes the fact that the architects,
in terms of inspiration, were not familiar with the American phenomenon.
One of the most exploited minimalists, Baeza (Grimmer, 2009) believes that
he was improperly attributed with the minimalist label, stating that being
abstract and essential does not mean being a minimalist. In this context,
Linder (2004, 4) estimates that the presumed affinity recent minimal
architecture and artistic work in the 60s are more a question of visual
similarity than development of specific circumstances and motivations
that inspired the artists of the 60s. Perhaps borrowing the name on the
basis of commonsense formalist obviousness would be acceptable, if for
the same reasons the minimal art got its name (15). It seems that the theory
of minimal art in the context of architecture is as futile as the once literal
translation of semiotics and deconstruction.
INTERPRETATIVE MODELS OF MINIMALISM IN ARCHITECTURE METU JFA 2013/2 191

CONCLUSIONS
Although still insufficiently defined, in recent years the topic of
minimalism enters the historical and theoretical reviews of contemporary
architecture. For example, Prestinenza (2008) presents the minimalist
tendency, architects and their works, while Mallgrave and Goodman (2011)
study a number of minimalisms divided in chapters: 1) materials and
effects - testing new materials and their sensory effects; 2) neomodernism
- simplicity in shaping forms taken from high modernism and; 3)
phenomenological architecture - testing phenomenological nature of the
experience of architecture itself. However, the approach to minimalism in
architecture that supposes reading of its interpretative models, allowed
getting closer to the answer to a rather important question of what is the
raison d’etre of minimalism at the very moment of its emergence. Discursive
analyses impose minimalism as an architectural form of critique, i.e., a
response to specific social circumstances, such as mass consumption,
economic recession, materialistic commodity culture and the postmodern
kitsch and populism. To support this opinion, certain ethical elements
of history, ascetic religions and tradition are affirmed. On the other
hand, the question remains whether all this is just an attempt to show
minimalism in any sense other than a stylistic revival or product of market
and advertising? In this sense, interpretative models of minimalism in
architecture range from idealization to demystification. In any event,
thanks to the time distance, the period ahead is left with the task of
opening new interpretative models of minimalism, which can certainly be
subjects of some future debates.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
AUER G. (1988) Vom Nutzen des Nichts: Minimalistische Formen und
Formein in der Architektur, Daidalos (30) 96-109.
AVON, A., VRAGNAZ, G. (1988) Aspetti del minimalismo in architettura,
Rassegna (36:4) 29-38.
BATTCOCK, G. ed. (1968) Minimal Art: A Crtical Anthology, Dutton,
NewYork.
BERTONI, F. (1999) Claudio Silvestrin, Octavo, Firenze.
BERTONI, F. (2002) Architettura minimalista, La Biblioteca, Firenze.
BERTONI, F. (2006) Design minimalista e Claudio Silvestrin, Journal of the
Museum of Applied Art in Belgrade (2) 91-107.
BONNEFOI, C. (1976) Louis Kahn et le minimalisme, Architectures-Arts
Plastiques, ed. Y.A. Bois, Corda, Paris; 118-136.
BUCHANAN, P. (1991) Swiss Essentialists, The Architectural Review (1127)
19-12.
CARMAGNOLA, F., VANNI, P. eds (1996) Minimalismo: ettica delle forme e
nuova semplicita nel design, Lupetti, Milano.
CELANT, G. (1988) La scultura, un’architettura non abitabile, Rassegna
(36:4)16-28.
CURTIS, W. (1982) Modern Architecture since 1900, Phaidon, London.
192 METU JFA 2013/2 VLADIMIR STEVANOVIC

FOSTER, H. (1986) The Crux of Minimalism, Individuals: A Selected History

of Contemporary Art 1945-1986, Museum of Contemporary Art, Los
Angeles; 162-183.
FRAMPTON, K. (1983) Prospects for a Critical Regionalism, Perspecta: The
Yale Arcitectural Journal (20) 147-162.
FRAMPTON, K. (1992) Modern Architecture: A Critical History, Thames and
Hudson, London.
GLANCEY, J. , RICHARD, B. (1990) The New Moderns, Soma Books, San
Francisco.
GOLDHAGEN, S. W. (2005) Something to Talk About: Modernism,
Discourse, Style, JSAH (64/2) 144-167.
GREGOTTI, V. (1988) Editoriale: Minimal, Rassegna (36:4) 4-8.
GRIMMER,V., MRDULJAS, M. and A. RUSAN (2009) To Be Apstract
Doesn’t Mean to Be Minimalist: interview with architect Alberto
Campo Baeza, ORIS online issue 55, <http://oa.upm.es/6812/2/INVE_
MEM_2010_74846.pdf>
GRIMSHAW, M. (2004) Soft Modernism: The World of Post-Theoretical
Designer, Ctheory online journal article 140, <http://www.ctheory.net/
articles.aspx?id=418#_ednref24>
HOLL, S., PALLASMAA, J., PÉREZ-GÓMEZ, A. (1994) Questions of
perception: phenomenology of architecture, A+U Special Issue, Tokyo;
Pallasmaa, J. (2005) The Eyes of the Skin: Architecture and the Senses,
John Wiley, New York.
IBELINGS, H. (1988) Supermodernism, NAI Publishers, Rotterdam.
JENCKS, C. (1982) Current Architecture, Academy Editions, London.
JENCKS, C. (1987), Post-Modernism: The New Classicism in Art and
Architecture, Academy Editions, London.
JENCKS, C. et al. (1990a) The New Modern Aesthetic, Architectural Design
Profile (86)
JENCKS, C. (1990b) The New Moderns: From late to neo-Modernism, Academy
Editions, London.
JENCKS, C. (2002) The New Paradigm in Architecture, Yale University Press,
London, New Haven.
KRAUSS, R. (1996) The grid, the /cloud/, and the detail, Presence of Mies,
ed. D. Mertins, Princeton Architectural Press, New York; 134-146.
KUSPIT, D. (1988) La versione minimalista dell’arte non-oggettiva, Rassegna
(36:4) 38-49.
LINDER, M. (2004) Nothing less than literal: architecture after minimalism, The
MIT Press, Cambridge.
MACARTHUR, J. (2000) The look on the object, Assemblage: A Critical
Journal of Architecture and Design Culture (41) 48.
MACARTHUR, J. (2002) The look on the object: minimalism in art and
architecture, then and now, Architectural Theory Review (7:1) 137-148.
MACARTHUR, J. (2005) The nomenclature of style: Brutalism, Minimalism,
art history and visual style in architecture journals, Architectural
Theory Review (10: 2) 100-108.
INTERPRETATIVE MODELS OF MINIMALISM IN ARCHITECTURE METU JFA 2013/2 193

MACHADO, R., EL-KHOURY, R., (1995), Monolitic Architecture, Prestel,

Munich.
MALLGRAVE, H. F., GOODMAN D. (2011) Minimalisms, An introduction
to architectural theory: 1968 to the present, Oxford, Wiley-Blackwell;
194-215.
MELHUISH, C. (1994) On Minimalism in Architecture, Architectural Design
Profile (110) 8-14.
MEYER, J. ed. (2000) Minimalism, Phaidon, London.
MONTANER, J.M. (1993) Minimalismos, El Croquis (62-63) 4-23.
MURRAY, P. (1999) Something or Nothing: Minimalism in Art and
Architecture, Architectural Design Profile (139) 8-17.
NICOLIN, P., ed (1994) Neominimalismo, Lotus International (81), Milan.
OBENDORF, H. (2009) Minimalism in architecture, in Minimalism:
Designing Simplicity, Springer-Verlag, London; 54-56.
PALLASMAA, J. (2005) The Eyes of the Skin: Architecture and the Senses,
John Wiley, New York.
PAWSON, J. (1996) Minimum, Phaidon, London.
PRESTINENZA, P.L. (2008) New Directions in Contemporary Architecture,
London, John Wiley and Sons Ltd; 51-55, 85-87.
RILEY, T. (1995) Light Architecture, MoMa, New York.
RUBY, I. et al. (2003) Minimal Architecture, Prestel, Munich.
SMITH, C.R. (1976) The Mexican minimalism of Ricardo Legorreta,
Architectural Record (160) 97-104.
TAKI, K. (1984) Minimalism or Monotonality? A Contextual Anallysis of
Tadao Ando’s Method, Tadao Ando: Buildings Projects Writings, ed. K.
Frampton, Rizzoli International, New York; 11-22.
TOY, M (1994) Editorial: Aspects of minimal architecture, Architectural
Design Profile (110) 7.
TOY, M (1999) Editorial: Aspects of minimal architecture II, Architectural
Design Profile (139) 7.
TOY, M. (2000) Practically Minimal, Thames and Hudson, London.
VICE, P. (1994) Minimalism and the Art of Visual Noise, Architectural
Design Profile (110) 15-17.
VANEENOO, C. (2011) Minimalism in Art and Design: Concept, influences,
implications and perspectives, Journal of Fine and Studio Art (2/1) 7-12
VITTORIO, E.S., MONTANER, J. M. (1996) Less is more: minimalisme en
arquitectura i d’ altres arts, Collegi d’ Arquitectes de Catalunya and
Actar, Barcelona.
WOLLHEIM, R. (1965) Minimal Art, Arts Magazine (January 1965) 26-32.
YPMA, R. (1996) London Minimum, Thames and Hudson, London.
ZABALBEASCOA, A., MARCOS, J. R. (2000) Minimalisms, Editorial
Gustavo Gili, Barcelona.
194 METU JFA 2013/2
Alındı: 10.09.2012; Son Metin: 10.12.2013
Anahtar sözcükler: mimarlıkta minimalizm,
tasarlama, tüketicilik, modernizm,
postmodernizm, minimal sanat.
VLADIMIR STEVANOVIC
MİMARLIKTA MİNİMALİZMİN YORUMLAYICI MODELLERİ
ÜZERİNE BİR OKUMA
Mimarlıkta minimalizm 80’lerde ortaya atıldığından bu yana tartışmalı,
kendine özgü bir konudur. Minimalizm üzerine söylem 90’larda yoğunluk
kazanırken 21. yüzyılın ilk on yılının ortalarında kuramsal bir odak
olmaktan yavaş yavaş çıkmaya başlamıştır. Mimarlıkta minimalizmin
bir kökeni ve süregelen bir gelişmesi olmadığından ve çok az mimar
kendini minimalist ilan ettiğinden, tartışma tarz, eğilim, akım ya da
okuldan bağımsız olarak sürmüştür. Demek ki, mimarlıkta minimalizm
postmodern dönem ve sonrasında varolan ve yaygınlaşan biçimsel deyimi
açıklama ihtiyacından doğan mimari bir söylem olarak da nitelendirilebilir.
Önerilen araştırma çerçevesinin amacı, yorumlayıcı modelleri okuyarak,
mimarlıkta minimalizmin tarihinin kuramsal bir tarih olduğunu öne süren
çağdaş mimarlığı daha iyi anlayabilmektir. Bu nedenle çağdaş mimarlık
araştırmacısı, minimalizmin, ne sadece biçimsel yapısının açıklanması,
sınıflandırılması, şiirsel çözümlemesi, hatta ne de yalnızca minimalizmin
ortaya çıkışını toplumsal ve tarihsel bağlama dair sorunlarla yüzyüze gelir.
Herşeyden önce bir dizi muğlak kuramsal yorumlara karşı eleştirel bir
bakışa sahip olmak gerekiyor.
VLADIMIR STEVANOVIĆ; B.Arch
Dipl. eng. Arch., Associate Assistant, Department of History, Theory and Aesthetics of
Architecture and Visual Arts, Faculty of Architecture, University of Belgrade, Serbia.